Gun Control Spin
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:08
VIEWED: 6740
PAGE 6 of 8
Who is "we"? The NRA?
If so, that's just a narrow, symbolic involvement for your freedom. I hope it's a little more borad-based group that gets to the fundamentals.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
A gun is just a symbol.
To you, apparently. To me, it's a tool.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer
Some people here believe the 'gun industry' bears NO responsibility. It's ALL personal and individual.
Not me. But I do think that the individual bears a greater proportion of the responsibility, particularly if they intentionally use a firearm (or any tool, for that matter) in an unsafe or illegal manner.
Manufacturers should be held liable if their products don't perform to spec, or if they're dangerous to users or bystanders when used properly.
Quote:
"meat that's not full of chemicals"
Wanted to point out the problem with wasting disease.
Not an issue in the areas I hunt, or in the pronghorn antelope, the game I prefer. Also pretty easy to identify, and not communicable to humans.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.
Hmmm. I agree that we should try "...to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane." I'm not so sure that the firearms 'industry', as in manufacturers, is the proper group on which to place this responsibility.
Laws and processes are already in place to prohibit sale of firearms to criminals and the adjudged insane. This is accomplished by background checks made by individual gun dealers through a federal program.
I'm trying to figure out how you could proactively identify 'the irresponsible' prior to a gun sale any more than you could before a car sale.
'Inept' could be taken care of by Fremd's requirement of a certificate of proficiency prior to sale. Most States which issue carry permits already have such a requirement.
Even with all of this in place the real problem - people obtaining guns through illegal means to commit illegal acts - will continue.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The point is to organize."
SOMEONE has to point this out, since no one else dares lest they be viewed as a proto-suspect already.
After watching what happened at Waco, staring down the barrel of the Patriot Act, and now HR1955...
Anyone who was doing such a thing damned sure would not discuss it publicly, not THESE days, hell no - cause these idiotic and unconstitutional laws make even political organising outright illegal, read them carefully if you do not believe me.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Not that it matters much, with the greater part of our fellow citizens diggin us in deeper, cheering all the way - frankly the one satisfaction imma have when things go to hell in a handbasket is watching them sink first, and small comfort it is, knowing they've chained ME to that boat anchor too.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, regular hunters are an exception to my comment. But most people who wax poetic about the right to bear arms are often less-than-practical about how they might actually do any good. The only way to conceivably fight the "gummint" with guns is to have an organized militia with hundreds of thousands of members.
A gun is just a symbol.- Signy
To you, apparently. To me, it's a tool-Geezer
Quote:I agree. You COULD be declared an illegal enemy combatant and clapped in jail forever for just discussing such a thing (conspiracy to commit terrorism or some such). I was just curious if Anthony T was referring to Ron Paul, the NRA or a third group. I think I have my answer.
Anyone who was doing such a thing damned sure would not discuss it publicly, not THESE days, hell no
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Whatever, to suggest that banning guns will cause every tool to be banned is still a fundementally flawed argument, as it is a slippery slope fallacy. Beyond that I haven't said whether guns should be outright banned or not, so why you're getting all on at me I have no idea.
Originally posted by Geezer:
No. You missed my point. Banning tools because a small precentage of the population misuses them isn't a logical response. Further, it has a disproportinate impact on the majority who use them properly and responsably, and almost no impact on those who willfully misuse them.
Quote:But child pornography sites are illegal, so this is a really bad analogy. Comparing guns to kitchen knives isn't great either, a gun is designed to kill people, a knife is designed to cut up food. Theres a big difference between a tool that *could* be used for a purpose, and a tool that is *designed* for that purpose.
Originally posted by Geezer:
Lots of people use the internet to distribute or obtain kiddie porn. Terrorist and racist organizations use it to communicate and plan attacks. Others use it to perpetrate scams and identity thefts. Should we ban the internet, or work to identify and stop those who misuse it?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wish you weren't done discussing it frem...
and I at least have hardly come to a solid conclusion on this...working through this discussion is how I'm gaining a better understanding of the issue and the perspectives involved.
That said,
my problem with your throw-away solution is that it isn't entirely genuine, I don't think. You suggest that the industry will regulate itself because of the looney's or ambulance chasers that are sue happy over the manufacturers, but in an ideal government and legal system you would see such litigation thrown out of court as frivolous,
leaving you with a self-regulating industry that has no reason to self-regulate.
why in that circumstance would gun retailers bother to screen who they let have a gun? It's money in their pocket after all...and we all know corporations don't have a conscience...they aren't actually people...
...........................
as to your driver's license argument....people who are deemed unstable don't get to drive, people who are blind don't get to drive, people with too many tickets don't get to drive. It is regulated...somebody decides that based on some criteria of competence that the american people, by proxy, agree upon.
............................
I'm not looking to take all risk out of life in favor of safety. But I see no sanity in having an entirely unregulated system that is likely to infringe upon peoples rights to life and liberty in a cascadingly dramatic fashion.
............................
I don't know if anybody on the board has suggested that there should be no way to legally obtain a gun, for the purpose of self-defense, hunting...collection..etc, though I might have missed it.
The discussion has been about regulation and liability, mostly. I want some sort of screening process is all, though it occurs to me that it wouldn't be a bad thing if gun owners were a little liable for the weapon they own. I'm just throwing that out there, because I see some problems with the idea, but personal responsibiliy for the registered weapons people have taken into their homes maybe could be done. You can't entirely blame somebody if their gun gets stolen, but if it got stolen or misplaced 3 days ago and wasn't reported, I think that might be something we could insist a gun-owner be on top of. This is just me thinking out loud though.
............................
I do share your concerns...I see a very real reason why the second amerndment could be important to hold up high, given that we live in an ever tenuous democracy, and I see legitimate reasons for carrying a gun for self defense(I think even Kucinich must agree on this one...he did carry one himself after getting death threats)
and I saw the confiscation of firearms during katrina as a blatant assault on the second amendment, especially given the circumstances(when has there been more of an absence of a well regulated militia?)
And I see a real danger, as I talked about in my other post, in not watching closely the agencies that would regulate gun control(the criteria should never be allowed to be a secret)
............................
And quite possibly its not the big issue of the day. I'm not sure what the ratio fo gun owners to gun-deaths is in this country, though we certainly have the highest gun related deaths of all devoloped countries, but it's probably lower than the ratio of car owners to car related deaths...etc.
On the flip side of the coin, self-defense is always touted as a reason to need your own weapon to defend yourself, and while cases do arise, and it isn't the government's business to tell you you can't defend yourself or your person with a weapon when truly threatened, I would say this is a little bit of a boogie man also, at least for most of us, (some communities excluded). And the reality is there are far more accidental shootings than self-defense related shootings.
.............
anyway, seems like I could write a few more paragraphs contradicting myself right and left...I'm still not sure
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AFA actual "gun control" is concerned (as opposed to gun registration, which is an entirely different thing), obviously you don't want to sell a gun to a minor, or to a criminal with a history of violence. The only problem I have with the "background check" process is the same problem I have with the "no fly" list, voter registration rolls, driving records, sex-offender lists, credit rating, grocery-store "club" cards, and ALL databases:
1) They need to be known to the person on the DB
2) Said person must have an opportunity to review and correct information at least once a year
3) The criteria for being on... or getting off... the list must be known and uniform.
AFA liabillity: It belongs to the registered owner, except in the case of an illegal sale in which case it belongs with the seller. If a gun is stolen or sold it must be reported otherwise- just like with cars- the person holding the last registration is "IT".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
agreed with that, I almost added a couple of those points but post was getting long
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME